As is often the case when government inserts itself where it has no business, the best of intentions can yield disastrous results. For L.A., this means more people will be murdered this year than last. (Also read J. Christian Adams at the Tatler: "Steve Rosenbaum: foe of LAPD, friend of New Black Panthers")

In 1992, the Los Angeles Police Department investigated a staggering 1,092 murders, the most in the city’s history. The number had risen more or less steadily through the late ’80s and into the ’90s with the advent of the crack cocaine trade and the gang violence that accompanied it, but since that high-water (high-blood?) year of 1992, homicide in the city has declined in almost every year, with the LAPD recording 297 murders in 2010.

Last year was the first in which Los Angeles saw fewer than 300 murders since 1967, a time when the city had 1.5 million fewer residents. The only interruption to this long, steady decline came in the years 1998 through 2002, when the tally rose from 419 to 647. We may soon see another rise in killing on the streets of L.A., and for reasons very similar to those that engendered the one that began in 1998.

In August 1998, LAPD internal affairs investigators arrested Rafael Perez, at the time an officer assigned to the gang unit at the department’s Rampart Division, for stealing cocaine from evidence storage. After being arrested, Perez supplied information on what came to be known at the Rampart scandal, in which, Perez alleged, he and his fellow officers in the gang unit engaged in all manner of misconduct, including planting evidence, perjury, excessive force, and even unprovoked and unjustifiable shootings.

Though Perez implicated dozens of officers in misconduct, criminal charges were ultimately brought against only nine. Of these, five pled guilty, one was acquitted by a jury, and three were convicted at trial. And those who were convicted at trial were later vindicated when their convictions were overturned by the trial judge, a decision upheld through the appellate process. And it is worth noting that those same three officers were later awarded $5 million each when a civil jury concluded that they had been arrested and charged despite the absence of probable cause. That verdict has also been upheld through a long series of appeals. (I wrote about this aspect of the Rampart scandal for National Review Online in 2008. You can read that column here.)

In addition to those officers who faced criminal charges, administrative charges were brought against 93 officers, most of whom were cleared. Seven officers were fired or voluntarily resigned, and 24 received punishments ranging from a reprimand to a suspension. In short, though Perez and another officer were shown to have committed some truly despicable acts, the so-called scandal was confined to a handful of officers at a single police station.

And yet, despite the lack of evidence of misconduct elsewhere in the LAPD, then-LAPD Chief Bernard Parks made the decision to shut down the gang units at all of the department’s 18 police stations (there are 21 today). One might speculate that the rise in murders that followed was coincidental, but such speculation is rebutted by the fact that murders resumed their decline in Los Angeles when Parks was ousted as chief and the gang units were re-established.

Though the Rampart scandal broke thirteen years ago, its effects are still being felt in the LAPD today. The scandal resulted in the imposition of a consent decree (.pdf) agreed to by the city of Los Angeles and Janet Reno’s Justice Department. The consent decree, intended to last five years, governed virtually every aspect of the department’s operation, subjecting it to inspection by a court-appointed monitor who demanded an impossibly high standard be met for the department to be found in compliance. It was finally lifted in 2009, though some vestiges remain, including a provision that officers assigned to gang and narcotics units be required to disclose their personal finances so as to detect any who might be deemed inordinately wealthy. The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file officers (and of which I am a member), filed suit seeking to block this provision, but the effort failed in the courts and the financial disclosure rules went into effect in March 2009.

The final version of these rules allowed for a two-year grace period for officers already assigned to these units, with only those newly assigned required to disclose their finances. But that two-year grace period is now coming to an end, and LAPD managers are discovering to their great discomfort just how unpalatable these new rules are to street cops. Rather than disclose their personal financial data (and those of spouses or anyone else with whom an officer might own an asset), many officers are choosing to accept reassignment to patrol or other duties in which these new rules do not apply. The result has been the complete shutdown of the gang units in some areas, and the understaffing of the units at every police station in the city.

For example, at Southeast Division, which patrols Watts and nearby areas of South Central L.A., and where 46 murders were reported last year, the gang unit was shut down in January. At the adjacent 77th Street Division (39 murders in 2010), the gang unit will cease to operate in February. Department managers lamely attempt to claim that this will not affect public safety in Los Angeles, as the officers and their accumulated expertise will remain at the same stations. “The community should not be concerned,” said Assistant Chief Earl Paysinger. “We haven’t backed away from our gang enforcement posture.”

To put it as politely as I can, this is what you might find scattered in a cow pasture after the cows have left. The gang officers remained at their same stations back in 1998, too, but that didn’t prevent the city’s gang members from taking advantage of the diminished enforcement posture, with the result being a significant rise in bloodshed. If the earlier decline in murders had persisted in those years, or even if the rate had but remained constant, hundreds of murder victims in Los Angeles would have been spared.

To be fair, the information required on the financial disclosure paperwork is anything but intrusive. It asks only for the most general details on an officer’s assets and liabilities. Where the trouble arises is in the random audits demanded by the consent decree, at which officers will be required to provide much more detailed information. Despite the repeated assurances of Chief Charlie Beck that the information will be safeguarded against unauthorized disclosure, many officers simply do not trust the department to keep their personal information confidential. Added to this is the fact that no living soul believes these measures will have even the slightest deterrent effect on corruption, so officers have little incentive to take the risk of having their financial information fall into the wrong hands, however minimal that risk might be.

But there is another reason officers are refusing to cooperate with the financial disclosure rules. For more than nine years, LAPD officers watched helplessly as millions of dollars and countless hours of their time were poured down the bureaucratic rathole that was the consent decree. For all that time they had no choice but to follow every one of its byzantine provisions. But now gang officers have a choice, and many of them are choosing to say no. (For an examination of another corrosive remnant of the LAPD’s consent decree, see Heather Mac Donald’s “Targeting the Police” in the Jan. 31 issue of the Weekly Standard.)

I credit the authors of the consent decree with good intentions in their desire to avert corruption in the Los Angeles Police Department. But as is most often the case when the federal government inserts itself where it has no business, the best of intentions can yield disastrous results. The outcome here is as predictable as the tides: More people in Los Angeles will be murdered this year than last. And what a shame that will be.

Jack Dunphy is the pseudonym of a police officer in Southern California.

Click here to view the 49 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

49 Comments, 18 Threads

1.
Tim Ackerman

“It was finally lifted in 2009, though some vestiges remain, including a provision that officers assigned to gang and narcotics units be required to disclose their personal finances so as to detect any who might be deemed inordinately wealthy.”

My son served in one of the gang units, and he refused – like his fellow officers – to sign the consent for the government to ‘look into ‘ his bank records (he earned about $70,000 annually when Los Angeles still had the money to pay for its cops). He was allowed to serve in the unit for two years only.

When he started, his first mission was to learn everything about a 100 Latino gang members in his are of operations (at times he worked in cooperation with the FBI, AFT, etc.). He knew their faces and habits, and every little detail imaginable. And he sent quite few in prisons.

He was very proud of what he did (as was I), and he disliked the management with a matching fervor. He kind of liked the new chief, though.

The insane laws and regulations robbed him of his beloved profession. After almost ten years with the LAPD; after seeing, experiencing and learning a lot, he is now ready to move on. He is most probably going to apply to one of the alphabet soups, who most probably could use an Army and an LAPD veteran whose knowledge base consists of everything from NBC recon to terrorism to gangs to helping out citizens of this great nation. My son puts his life on the line every day.

I’m not sure he’ll like the job with the feds either, but anything is better than the LAPD as it is.

As much as I dislike cops (and love my son), I can’t help wondering, what the hell the city of angel’s – or the freaking feds – won with these asinine rules, except populating Idaho?

And what do these laws tell you about federal attitudes towards police? “The local police are a bunch of thugs just waiting to fleece the gentle taxpayers, and so they need to be supervised like delinquent first-graders.” I’m glad the gang officers are refusing to play the Fed’s game, but what is saddening is that these games won’t likely end until someone high-profile is killed by a gangbanger. The low income blacks and hispanics being protected by people like your very talented son (and being killed by Bloods, Cripps, etc.) don’t seem to matter so much to those in charge, but if a socialist union leader or an ethnic studies professor were killed you can be sure there would be hell to pay.

How’s this for a solution? Relax the gun laws and allow residents to form armed patrols of their neighborhoods in cooperation with the local police units. I bet that would clean out the city real quick, and reduce the need for special gang units.

You’re assuming the residents of South LA are all honest Patriots. I love your optimism. But having worked Newton Division, I can assure you that armed patrols will turn into a situation similar to the Mexican Cartels controlling each neighborhood in TJ. Los Angeles, like the LAPD, will eat its young and then find a scapegoat. It was the lack of overtime, or the cops arent working hard enough (Depending on who you ask), etc. Its that arrogant LA attitude that the government has. The “we’re better than everyone else because we live in LA. So we know what’s best.” Ofcourse you know whats best, I mean that’s why our crime rate is so low and we have such great schools… oh, wait….

The war on cops is the costliest war the U.S. has been engaged in for fifty years now. It costs the lives of victims — many hundreds of thousands — and cops — four decent public servants slaughtered in the line of duty in my state in the last week, and not a whimper from the White House.

I worry about the noises being made by Gingrich, Huckabee and other allegedly conservative pols who cannot resist the enjoyable frisson of advocating for emptying the prisons, compassion for thugs, “community sentencing” and so on. It’s a game for them, one that pleases thoughtless cost-cutters while garnering beltway admiration (as it were) from the judicial/legal/academic/journalist crowd who praise them for their “maverick stances” and “compassion” against the troglodites who actually think violent people belong behind bars.

Don’t forget, those same pols, judges and lawyers are routinely granted concealed weapons permits by their local sheriff while the rest of the unwashed, yet law abiding citizens, are turned down “for cause”.

Years ago I worked as a consultant to police departments in Canada and the US. An incident occurred in Toronto provides an illustration of what happens to a police agency when well-meaning civilians attempt to impose artificial rules over a difficult profession. In this incident a uniformed officer was called to a scene where a crazed man was attacking people with a sword. After repeated warnings from the officer, the man (who was black) charged the officer with an obvious attempt to kill him. The cop responded by shooting and killing him. Many of us viewed the officer as a hero. Not so for the Commissioner of police (a socialist, civilian appointee) who manipulated the system to make sure that he was charged with murder! You can imagine the political fallout. Black vs white. Left vs right. Young vs old(er). When the cop was brought to trial the jury deliberated for a few minutes before rendering a “not guilty” verdict. But this didn’t end the story. The cop’s career was over. And most importantly, police behavior changed in Toronto. Today, police are very slow to respond to violent, on-going crimes. The police have become “information takers” after crimes occur, not “crime stoppers”. Do you blame them? I don’t!

” The police have become “information takers” after crimes occur, not “crime stoppers”.

Have BECOME?

Where do YOU live?

Theyve ALWAYS BEEN….

Even more so in the “nicer” neighborhoods, where any evidence of crime is usually swept under the rug

No cop was around when my wife was mugged…or even took her discription of the perp and the direction he ran in with anything but a “he’s long gone, nothing we can do attitude.

No cop was around when my neighbor was carjacked in her own driveway… took them a hour to show up…No cops around when a road-rager in an SUV intenionally rammed me on my mortorcycle, but they did want to see if it was stolen, as all my paperwork blew away in the “explosion”, NEVER EVEN ASKED for a make, model or plate number till the next DAY in the hospital…

The best is when the Crack Head Hooker/illegal squatter next door shoots too much heroin, and sits on OUR front steps drooling…

If they ever come at all, they drive by, and keep right on going, while our kids are too afraid to walk outside and play.

When she gets up and wanders around our “upscale” neighborhood in her stupified haze, (in sweatpants and a BRA), the Police put her in a cruiser and bring her BACK to the “rental” next door…the one where the landlord had her EVICTED, and continuoulsy TELLS THE POLICE she is a CRIMINAL TRESSPASSER and not welcome on the property.

I have to call the landlord when she shows up, and HE (a poor elderly guy trying to fund his retirement with a rental income) has to plead with her to leave HIS OWN PROPERTY, because THE POLICE wont ever arrest her for trespassing.

Goes without saying, every SINGLE ONE of our “officers” is LESS than 6 feet tall, and MORE than 250 pounds of pure “a-jiggle-ty” in action. God help us if they ever need to hop a fence, or run up a flight of stairs.

Report takers?

I should BE so lucky to get THAT much service from these Union Bums with Guns

You really misstated the conservative position on emptying prisons. The people who are taken out of the prison and put into reform programs helps keep them from going back into prison. Many people are hooked on drugs or don’t know how to rejoin society when they get out, without falling back on their old ways and friends. Some of the money saved in such programs helps the mentally ill. The reasons for people being sent to prison are too standardized and many of the procedures need overhaul. There are states that have successfully lowered the prison population, saved money and put the savings into programs with results that lower the crime rates. Let’s hope California learns the lessons from other states.

The money saved should be used to send the mentally disturbed people into jail.Where they could be treated instead of being ignored and put into relatives homes to commit rape and worse crimes onto people who are only trying to cope with a family member that is NOT catered for in the Health service outside of institutions. It is the ONLY place they get treatment. It is cruel for some but for the majority it is very helpful.The worst thing they ever did was to release the mentally ill onto the community to be lost.

I’m sorry to disagree with you regarding committing the mentally ill to jail. We already do this because we have no treatment options for them outside the criminal justice system. Mentally ill homeless get no treatment and ususally self-medicate with street drugs until they’re arrested for criminal activity such as drug abuse, theft or assault. After they are arrested, convicted and jailed, they get the treatment they need. But,the cost of treating the mentally ill in a criminal setting is more expensive than in civil commitment, and the guards in jail are not trained medical personnel. Added to that, putting mentally ill people in jail is unfair to them, corrections workers and normal prisoners.

Platitudes upon platitudes, Daphni. You’re not right about anything you say.

People aren’t being “taken out of prison” and placed in programs. Also, there are already plenty of programs in place for people who are only substance abusers: there’s little potential for new savings unless we start expanding the fail rate even more regarding incarcerating serious, recidivist offenders. People don’t end up in prison (as opposed to brief stints in jail) for mere substance abuse: the prison population is overwhelmingly recidivist offenders with long records of failure at lesser sentencing.

Conservatives who claim that there is some big pool of non-violent, first time offenders in prison who could otherwise be treated more cheaply in the community are simply lying.

Drugs are a bad idea all around, the people that mess with them crapped thier own bed, and I refuse to spend my decent, honest, hardworking neighbors money on shitheads who refuse to straighten up and fly right.

Ditto for child molesters, rapists and the rest.
My only concern is, are they truly guilty, yes or no.

I’m still not sure what officers fear about audit information getting into the wrong hands. Are they worried about identity theft, or what? Are their wives earning money working off-the-books? Are they working private details in their spare time unapproved by the department?

Or is there a certain degree of low-level of corruption that cops take for granted — that former gang-unit members don’t wish to miss out on getting their share?

They are worried because under the Freedom of Information act the Daily News in L.A. will find a way to get that information and print it. Last year they printed the names and salaries of all city employees.

The other danger to disclosing personal financial information is this…. a hotshot defense attorney will find a way to file a motion in court and have that information presented in a trial. Let me ask you this fsilber… would you want some gang member, who’s looking at spending the rest of his life in prison, to have access to your bank accounts, mortgage records, your kids’ college fund, etc?

Identity theft is a big factor. Disclosure of residence is another.
Wife’s place of employment, stores where purchases are made, etc, can tell Adam Henrys where they can find and hurt you and yours. A freak with your DOB and SS# can ruin your credit for life in about two hours.
All data you provide is accessible by dozens of unsworn clerical people, many of whom are sympathetic to the criminal element.
With access to your residence they can plant dope, guns used in homicides, or whatever, in your car or home.
Finally, if you are earning in the Market, as an author, selling real estate, it is none of their business as long as it is legal.

From the article: “I credit the authors of the consent decree with good intentions in their desire to avert corruption in the Los Angeles Police Department”

I don’t. Government rarely does anything with good intentions. Government does things to grow in power and influence. The increase may not be apparent to the casual observer, but you can be sure somewhere, somehow, the government has gained something from this consent degree.

As a longtime resident of Los Angeles area, I really appreciate your insightful writing on this subject. Since one cannot get any competent decoding of this issue in the lamestream press, it is helpful indeed.
Put into larger context:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7522
CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY (CPS)
* Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven (both longtime members of the Democratic Socialists of America, where Piven today is an honorary chair), the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

I agree with you 200%.The Gov with their many tentacles are pushing and pushing at the liberty of the people ,until one day their will be a riot of mass proportions. This is exactly what the Gov wants,so that ‘marshal law’ or the modern day equivalent can be unfolded on the unsuspecting people.If you read between the line of people like Dean and Pelosi,you can see it written clearly as to how they feel about the American folk. Be warned good folk,they are planning something.
I feel it is going to happen after the 2012 election if the SEIU, and their ‘acorn’ affilliates cannot get Obama re-elected.

Idiots who keep their own personal finances and identities confidential stupidly saying, “But, if they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of.”

Most of those “idiots” aren’t public employees; and what’s more public employees in positions that require the absolute trust and confidence of the public they serve, as they have the right to use deadly force. If some one can shot me, I’d like to know that like “Caesar’s wife” they are “above suspicion”.

Mike, cops have the same constitutional rights we all share. If you are working gangs you don’t want anyone to know anything about you out of fear for your wife and kids. Particularly thousands of unknown persons at the federal level, many of whom hate cops. If you were a cop and some body gave or sold your home address to some GB, how would your wife feel when sixguys with red headbands followed her home from the supermarket?

I don’t trust ANYONE that, deals with large amounts of drugs and money, that can be walked off with as easly as, saying “no I didn’t” I’d like to know, if the officers, doing the arresting…..are not just as bad as the people they are arresting…makeing it “difficult” for them to hide the money…seems to me might help….

First off, the gang cops deal with street level amounts of drugs and money. During my 7 years working gangs as an officer and sergeant, we rarely came across large amounts of money or drugs. Believe it or not, gang life is not like the rap videos you watch. Most gang members are not wealthy. It is a uniformed assignment, so the amount of dope we get is usually street sales quantity.

The disclosure rules do not make it more difficult to hide any money. Do you really believe a corrupt cop is going to deposit his ill gotten gains into a credit union or bank. No, this is an intrusive request for information that has a substantial penalty if anything is omitted. The officer faces termination if the Department believes he neglected to list any financial information. Did any of you ever forget to close that college credit union account or forgot that your you widowed mom listed on her checking account “Just in case”. If so, you could face a charge of insubordination.

No. 3. The potential exists that a judge could order the information released to a defense attorney in a criminal case if the judge believes that the information may help the defendant.

Finally, something Jack neglected to mention, is the type of officer replacing those who did not sign the disclosure. Gang cops were the type of officers who took great pride in being the best on the Department. They were the ones who went on to Metro, SWAT and other elite units. They are the guys you want coming when you really need a cop. They are being replaced with warm bodies whose sole qualification is their willingness to fill out some paperwork.

“Finally, something Jack neglected to mention, is the type of officer replacing those who did not sign the disclosure. Gang cops were the type of officers who took great pride in being the best on the Department. They were the ones who went on to Metro, SWAT and other elite units. They are the guys you want coming when you really need a cop. They are being replaced with warm bodies whose sole qualification is their willingness to fill out some paperwork.

GhettoCop

My son served in an LAPD gang-unit for two years, and he could have continued for another two if he only had agreed to sign the consent for the city to look into his bank account.

He could have applied to SWAT; he chose not to, because it’s still the same LAPD going downhill fast.

He is being replaced with a cop who wants to get away from the street patrol and get promoted one day. My son was with the Violent Criminal Task Force prior to gang unit, so he was somewhat qualified in dealing with the worst of the worst Mexico can offer. In addition, he was an Army veteran.

Regardless, the city of LA is full of caca toro.

To those suggesting gang-unit cops are obvious criminals due to not signing their life away: mucho caca toro.

In life may be found fools, damn fools and stupid idiots. Those “suggesting gang-unit cops are obvious criminals….” have somehow managed to hit an imbecilic trifecta. If they had any smarts they would also be regularly playing the lottery,

I provide a service for which I am paid by the city. You may not approve of my salary or benefits, so feel free to take whatever action you wish to change them. However, once I am paid my salary, do you really believe I do not have the same privacy rights with my paycheck as you do? If by open the books, you mean see where the Department spends its money, by all means do so (these “books” are already public record). You have a right to see exactly how much I get paid, for what work , etc. You do not have the right to examine my personal financial records.

Do you feel the same about the members of the military? Should all members of the armed forces have all their financial records open to all?

Most officers if not already married at some point will marry. Financial decisions in California, which is a community property state, are made by both people in the relationship. It is not the officers’ decision alone. The audit includes that of a spouse. The credit history is not separate. Why would any spouse say yes to an agency in which they have not employeed. If my spouse is not applying for why should she/he agree to disclose his finances. He/she is not employeed by the LAPD.

someone mentioned Bernard Parks. If you recall, while he was chief some intresting things re gangsters unfolded. Parkers was informed by a highly respected detective about Perez and some other officers. Parks response was that he did not want to hear it. Then his daughter or step-daughter who at the time was a department employee was busted while enroute to Vegas with some thug(s) with dope and known to hang with Perez and CO. Then the murder of his grand daughter who also was known to gang with gansters in the Lower Baldwin Hills area. After these events he closed down the gang units. Sounds like somebody got to close or in some type of trouble and wqas going to roll. Now he’s head of the Public Safety committe and still trying to do the men and women of the greatest police department harm.

With the skill ‘Hackers’ have, nothing is safe. Why not require all police officers to disclose their financial status so the entire Dept can leave and avoid being labeled as ‘corrupt’. By ‘chief’ Parks shutting down all Gang Units he was saying he didn’t trust any of them even though he had no proof. It was a self serving political move to satisfy the voters in the area he was going to choose to represent as a councilman. Another excellent article by Dunphy.

The root 83, you have every right to know what ghetto cop is paid by the city, including benefits. What you do not have is the right to his private information. We still, in this country, have something called “probable cause.” If a cop, let’s call him Aldrich Ames, is seen driving around in a Mercedes 600SL and has a beach house, there may be a valid question about where his money came from. Maybe someone could ask him, as no one ever asked the real Aldrich Ames. Maybe his wife inherited money or he won the Lottery. Absent evidence of inappropriate wealth, there is no right to inspect anyone’s private financial data unless you are the IRS.

WHEN THE CHIEF COMMANDERS AND COMMAND STAFF START TAKING THE DRUG TESTS AND OPENING THEIR FINANCES TO SCRUTINY THEN THE RANK AND FILE WILL.

Indeed. Because they are charged with the use of Deadly Force, the lives of everyone – from the Chief on down to the newest rookie patrolman – should be an open book to the public. If the police are uncomfortable with living in a fish bowl, perhaps they should find another line of work. And if their lives are already an open book, there will be nothing for a defense lawyer to use against them. As for your rights; think of it as being like the military – where you gave up a number of your rights the minute you took the oath.

That’s absurd. Politicians live in a fishbowl – and that’s a big part of why lots of talented people would never run for public office. So we are left with too many egomaniacs who LIKE being the center of attention.

Law enforcement officers in no way should have to give up any rights of citizens. Asking them to do so drives people away from law enforcement, and we need all the talented people in law enforcement we can get.

It’s a difficult job, with adversarial management, often an adversarial public, and mountains of BS to cope with. Many of the officers see it as an insult. If I went out to police gangs every day, with the risks involved, and was asked to reveal my personal information, I’d probably feel insulted too.